The Case for Secession-Lawmaking (part one)

    These next several entries are going to focus on the most fundamental aspect of our representative republic.  The whole point of our form of government is that "we the people" choose representatives who meet to pass laws and make decisions that best reflect our values and desires and fulfil the purposes of the contract; in our case, the Constitution.
    For much of the following, I am indebted to the work of Peter Hendrickson in his comprehensive work on taxation in America; "Cracking the Code".  Hendrickson states there are three characteristics of legitimate law; legitimacy of authority, clarity of command and conformity to established procedures of notice.  We shall explore all three of these ideas as they relate to the present federal system of government and its lawmaking function.
    The first point is that any laws passed must be done so by a legitimate authority.  This means that "we the people" must have delegated to the lawmaking authority the appropriate jurisdiction.  After all, it is "we the people" upon whom the law will be imposed.  If we choose to delegate to the lawmaking body our decisions over the clothes we wear, we cannot complain when they outlaw striped shirts.  However, if we have not given them jurisdiction over our attire, any law they pass seeking to determine our decisions over our apparel would be illegitimate and we would be well within our rights to resist its implementation by any means we see fit.  On our case, the constraints of lawmaking authority are determined by the specific powers delegated to the federal government through the constitution.  If "we the people" believe that the government should have additional powers not outlined in that contract, the amendment process is available to ensure that the vast majority of the people agree that such a grant of additional authority is necessary and proper.  Foolproof, no, but if followed, it is a pretty good safeguard.
    As an example, lets consider the right of the federal government to regulate what you ingest.  It could be food, drink or drugs.  One hundred years ago, the federal government had no authority, legitimate or otherwise, to determine what you ate or drank.  There was no regulation of pharmaceuticals and very little even of food safety.  The constitution gives no power to the federal government to do so.  There were two approaches to correct this.  One group believed that alcohol was a great evil and that society should seek to eradicate it and the federal government should have the power to do so.  This resulted in the eighteenth amendment and it was the proper way to expand the power of the federal government.  The people soon realized this was not such a good idea and repealed it.
    The second group believed the federal government could exercise such power through simple law and regulation which is how we have dealt with it to this day.  We have the FDA, the ATF and a multitude of other agencies that "regulate" everything we eat, drink or otherwise ingest.  Certain substances become illegal or subject to special regulation or taxation.  Alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals, legal or illegal, are the most obvious.  We have accepted these restrictions because they have been around so long but by allowing the government to exercise authority in this area outside the contract's jurisdiction without protest, we have unwittingly made our bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the state.  We have tied the hands of doctors who would like to prescribe treatments that have not been "approved" by unelected government bureaucrats.  We have wasted billions of dollars on our "war on drugs" and filled up prison space with non-violent offenders when we should have the room for the cold blooded killers who too often are released early.  Now we are considering allowing the federal government to regulate and tax carbon dioxide, the air we exhale, or to tax the food we enjoy that may contain sugar or fat.  Do we realize what we have done? 
      I will tell you exactly what we have done.  First, we have allowed the federal government to continually involve itself in areas our contract does no authorize.  It does it through small increments, appealing to our desire for safety and security, but once begun, it never stops.  It is the nature of governments to expand their power, to break their bonds with their creators (we the people) and the restraints they have placed on them (the contract-constitution) and it is only through eternal vigilance governments can be kept in check.  We have not been vigilant and now when our government is seeking to stamp out the last vestiges of our perceived freedom we wonder why they ignore our plaintive cries.
    The second thing we have done is allowed our elected representatives to delegate the authority we have bestowed upon them to unelected bureaucrats.  This is illegitimate on it's face.  It is one thing for a lawmaker to allow the creation of a bill to be delegated to "experts" (more on this later) and then vote on it,  but it is another thing entirely to allow an unelected bureaucrat to develop rules and regulations that have the force of law independent of the congressional process, rules and regulations we must obey on pain of fine or imprisonment.  Our contract gives specific authority to our legislators to create the rules and regulations under which we live within the parameters of their defined powers.  We have relinquished a small part of our freedom to them in order that they may regulate specific areas for the greater good.  We have not relinquished our freedom or rights to a "czar" or other unelcted bureaucrat and we are under no moral or legal obligation to heed their directives.  The fact is that if we did relinquish our authority to delegate we would be acting against our own best interests and contrary to the natural order.  If I gave up my ability to make any decisions over my life whatsoever to a perfect stranger, my mental condition would rightly be questioned.  Such an act would be a voluntary abandonment of my natural rights, and act which is impossible.  The Creator has bestowed those rights irrevocably upon every man and we can reject them no more than we can reject our own breath.  Not only is such an act morally impossible, if we adhere to the illusion that we could transfer dominion over our natural rights to another, given the nature of man, such authority would be subject to the worst abuses.  "If men, through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.  The right to freedom being the gift of almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."  Samuel Adams.
    In "The Violation of Our Contract" I stated that governments, once created, are like a corporation, an entity in and of itself.  A legitimate state exercises authority by the consent of those upon whom it exercises that authority and it derives its authority, its very existence, from those who created it.  Such a state cannot authorize its own authority.  If that were the case the creation could argue with the creator concerning what powers it had been granted and do so with equal standing.  Government should be like a robot, only doing those things programmed into it by its creator.  We are the creator and the program is the contract, the constitution.  The federal government the founders created had the potential for great power and horrible tyranny if operated outside its specific parameters.  Over time, we have allowed the program to become corrupted and instead of pulling the plug we have allowed it to exercise more and more power over us until we now believe that it is the creator and we exist to serve it.  How foolish we have been!  Would we consider any data from an infected computer legitimate?  Why do we consider anything from our government as legitimate?  As one of President Obama's czars has stated, political power comes at the point of a gun.  We have put an ever larger weapon in its hands and allowed this government to become the instrument of our own demise.  It is a powerful monster running on a corrupt program bent on our complete subjugation.  It is beyond tinkering, it must have its power cord unplugged.  It is within our power to do so if we have the courage necessary to do it.  If we are willing to make the sacrifices required to restore our freedom.  If not, we will only fall deeper into servitude and access to the power cord will come at greater and greater cost.